Confirmation Bias

by Carl Hulse

“Entertaining and shrewd....Hulse is an expert guide through the machinations on Capitol Hill.” -- New York Times Book Review

The Chief Washington Correspondent for the New York Times presents a richly detailed, news-breaking, and conversation-changing look at the unprecedented political fight to fill the Supreme Court seat made vacant by Antonin Scalia’s death—using it to explain the paralyzing and all but irreversible dysfunction across all three branches in the nation’s capital. The embodiment of American conservative thought and jurisprudence, Antonin Scalia cast an expansive shadow over the Supreme Court for three decades. His unexpected death in February 2016 created a vacancy that precipitated a pitched political fight. That battle would not only change the tilt of the court, but the course of American history. It would help decide a presidential election, fundamentally alter longstanding protocols of the United States Senate, and transform the Supreme Court—which has long held itself as a neutral arbiter above politics—into another branch of the federal government riven by partisanship. In an unprecedented move, the Republican-controlled Senate, led by majority leader, Mitch McConnell, refused to give Democratic President Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, a confirmation hearing. Not one Republican in the Senate would meet with him. Scalia’s seat would be held open until Donald Trump’s nominee, Neil M. Gorsuch, was confirmed in April 2017. Carl Hulse has spent more than thirty years covering the machinations of the beltway. In  Confirmation Bias  he tells the story of this history-making battle to control the Supreme Court through exclusive interviews with McConnell, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and other top officials, Trump campaign operatives, court activists, and legal scholars, as well as never-before-reported details and developments. Richly textured and deeply informative,  Confirmation Bias  provides much-needed context, revisiting the judicial wars of the past two decades to show how those conflicts have led to our current polarization. He examines the politicization of the federal bench and the implications for public confidence in the courts, and takes us behind the scenes to explore how many long-held democratic norms and entrenched, bipartisan procedures have been erased across all three branches of government.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, History, Law, Government, Psychology, Audiobook

320 pages, Hardcover

First published June 11, 2019

About the author

Carl Hulse is chief Washington correspondent for the New York Times and a veteran of more than three decades of reporting in the capital. He has also served as the Washington editor of The Times as well as the chief congressional correspondent. Carl is a native of Illinois and a graduate of Illinois State University.

Reviews

[Matt · Rating 5 out of 5]

While the circus known as the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination process has passed, the memory of this dramatic event lingers for many. A wrestling match between a determined US president and segment of the Senate created the conflict, but Carl Hulse seeks to delve a little deeper. Exploring a history of recent Senate-POTUS clashes over judicial nominations, Hulse examines how partisan politics brought many nominations to a halting stop while others became a bloodbath between the Democrats and Republicans. With the primary focus on events from the death of Justice Antonio Scalia through to the Kavanaugh nomination of 2018, Hulse explores how a cunning move by the Republican Senate Majority Leader paralyses the process for President Obama and turned the constitutional requirement of the Chief Executive to nominate members to the Court into a farce. Offering a detailed explanation of all the players, their moves, and the history of Senate Judicial Committee hearings, Hulse provides all the tools for the reader to ‘judge’ for themselves if the politics surrounding federal nominations has been completely bastardized. With poignant analysis and well-documented narratives, including little-known facts about nomination approvals by the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Hulse provides the reader just what the title suggests, the likely ever-developing power-play over some of the most important choices during a president’s tenure. Recommended to those who love all things political in the United States, as well as the reader with a curiosity about the nomination process of judges.

I have done some reading about the recent goings-on with the Kavanaugh nomination and thought that I would have a more panoramic exploration of events in recent history on the topic. Carl Hulse does a masterful job offering the reader a detailed look at political stage play and the emerging view that the two main political parties in the US Senate are out to gouge one another in the eye. Offering supported arguments and events in history, the narrative is full of tidbits that the reader can use to explore more of these numerous events. From the stalling and refusing to vote on an Obama nominee, to the quick selection by President Trump once he was sworn-in, through to the circus that was Brett Kavanaugh and his purported innocence, the book delivers while embedded references to past events of a similar nature. All power truly rests with US Supreme Court Justices, making their selection not only paramount to a president, but also help to push an agenda for decades. Perhaps this is why there is blood whenever the nominee is controversial or the Senate split so closely that a vote cannot be assured. Whatever it might be, Hulse is the perfect author to pen such a tome, as he appears to have all his facts in a row.

Kudos, Mr. Hulse, for a riveting book that kept me wondering until the very end. I will have to find more of your writing to see what else you have to say!

Love/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/

A Book for All Seasons, a different sort of Book Challenge: https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...

[Jean · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book outlines how the Republicans systematically set out to take over the judiciary. They did this with great discipline. According to Hulse this started in 2008.

The book is well written and researched. The author also interviewed numerous people as part of his research. Hulse attempts at staying neutral or unbiased in presenting the information, but in my opinion, at times leans a bit to the right. Hulse tells how Mitch McConnell, as Senate Majority Leader, set out his strategy for owning the Supreme Court after the death of Antonin Scalia. But the takeover of all the federal judiciary was already underway. Hulse tells how McConnell deliberately and systematically blocked all but a few of Obama’s appointees to federal openings. The author outlines exactly how rules and procedures were changed by both parties that have changed the Senate process forever. He portrays a picture of how partisan the Senate has become and, therefore, has destroyed itself in the long term. The author reveals the role of the Federalist Society. Much of this was in the news but some information was not. This is an important read for everyone as we are going to live under this judiciary for the next thirty plus years. This is an unfortunate situation as the judiciary is supposed to be neutral.

I read this as an audiobook downloaded from Audible. The book is ten hours and fifteen minutes. Fred Sanders does a good job narrating the book. Sanders is an actor and longtime audiobook narrator.

[Shane Gower · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating, frightening, and a warning that unfortunately few will head. I saw Carl Hulse speak at the National Council for the Social Studies conference in Austin, TX about this book. As he himself says, Mitch McConnell praises this book and somehow fails to see it as the stinging rebuke of how polarized and partisan our government has become that it is. Most likely because McConnell sees this as a good thing!

Hulse writes, "Under current rules, and at the current levels of vitriol and distrust, a future president of one party could easily be thwarted from getting essential nominees through a Senate controlled by the other. With both parties responding to their political bases, voting against the nominee of a president from the opposing party has become the norm rather than the rare occurrence. It is a prescription for a badly dysfunctional government... 'That is the collateral damage that is going to flow over time from abandoning the sixty-vote requirement,' (Senator Lindsey) Graham told his Democratic colleagues. 'Right now we don't need any of you all, and there will come a day when you don't need any of us. Judges are going to be more ideological because you don't have to reach across the aisle to get anybody's input, and it is going to have an effect over time on the judiciary that I very much regret.'"

But the larger point Hulse leaves for the end, "McConnell will forever be credited by Republicans and criticized by Democrats for his resistance to Obama that culminated with the obstruction of (Supreme Court Nominee Merrick) Garland for nearly a year. But the biggest beneficiary of that effort was not McConnell or even (Supreme Court Justice Neil) Gorsuch, the man ultimately named to the seat so suddenly vacated by (Antonin) Scalia on that Holiday weekend in February 2016. The biggest winner was undoubtedly Donald Trump. Trump almost certainly would not have won the presidency without that open court seat to entice Republican voters and keep them supporting him despite personal failings of the sort that were on vivid display in the now infamous Access Hollywood tape."

Dysfunctional government indeed! Will anyone listen or care? Perhaps the 2020 election will be the indication?

[HR-ML · Rating 3 out of 5]

Kindle edition. I gave this 3.5 stars.

US Senate was charged with, among other responsibilities,
"advice and consent" on federal judges, federal appeals
judges and those on the Supreme Court (hereafter SCOTUS).
They voted to confirm federal judges. Before they needed
a vote of 60 (100 Senators total), now they needed a 'simple
majority' of 51 to confirm the nominee. This could result in
the minority party in the Senate having 'tied hands.' Also
the Vice President could break a tie vote in the Senate.

In theory, the Senate Judiciary Committee (JC) sought a
SCOTUS nominee's judicial philosophy/ record. The JC voted
yes/ no (after their nominee interrogation) to pass the nom-
ination to the full Senate for a vote yes/ no to confirm the
SCOTUS nominee. In reality, the SCOTUS nominee was asked
partisan questions by JC, was he/she pro or con on : voting,
abortion, gay, environmental, gun ownership etc rights ?
GOP Senators seemed especially interested in federal de-
regulation. (Federal de-regulation contributed in part to the
US financial meltdown in 2008 which spread worldwide).
Huse discussed nominee controversies: Bork, Thomas,
Garland and Kavannah.

Many US Presidents naively thought a conservative
nominee would vote conservatively or along party lines
once on the SCOTUS. Chief Justice John Roberts twice
voted to defend Obamacare (The Affordable Care Act)
in SCOTUS, and 2x the GOP castigated him for it. Both
political parties conveniently forgot a judge was intended
to be impartial.

Democrats and Republicans acted partisan and childish
RE the nomination process. If a federal court nominee
lived in Arizona (or other state) the 2 US Senators in
that state were asked to complete a "blue slip" to vouch
for the judicial nominee. Some refused to do it or ignored
the blue lip. Seldom a nominee was brought to a vote if
both Senators rejected him/ her. The author discussed
filibusters of nominees and how those rules changed.

Interesting. All federal judges, except SCOTUS have a code
of ethics.

[Reese Copeland · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book. Goes behind the scenes to show and detail fights to get someone confirmed for the Supreme Court, that few, Americans understand.

[CHAD FOSTER · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a page turner that kept me moving from page to page from start to finish. Unfortunately, it is also thoroughly depressing because it sheds light on the seemingly intractable dysfunction and rampant hypocrisy on all sides of today’s partisan political divide in the US.

Judicial confirmations are now the most heated, and potentially most important, battles in the polarizing domestic political struggle between Democrats and Republicans. The fundamental question of how our society will interpret the Constitution is at the heart of the partisan divide. Both sides have become increasingly willing to burn down traditional processes and rules that have long helped to protect the integrity of our political institutions. Actions and words that gain an immediate advantage are planting seeds that are likely to bear bitter fruit in the years to come.

Beginning with the Supreme Court fights of the 1980s and reaching into recent headlines, this book makes clear that both Republicans and Democrats share the blame. Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Merrick Garland, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh all feature prominently, but the central characters in this intrigue are in Congress and the White House. The outsized role of unelected partisan ideologues in the selection of (and opposition to) SCOTUS candidates is scary. The seeming abandonment of decency and respect throughout the entire process is even more troubling. A “scorched earth” mentality has become pervasive.

The reader is left to ponder why anyone of high character who values their reputation and that of their family would ever want to enter this cut-throat theater of the absurd.

Read with an open mind. Set aside the “whataboutism” that has become so common in today’s partisan echo chambers. It’ll be worth your time.

[Ctgt · Rating 4 out of 5]

Heard Hulse discussing his book on a podcast and found the discussion intriguing. A good synopsis of the past few decades of judicial confirmations and the political battles that have got us where we are now. Many instances that infuriated me from both sides of the aisle and reminded me that most of the current political one-upmanship sounds like school children arguing over who did what first. The book made it pretty clear that Trump's election was directly related to his list of potential court nominees for the Scalia vacancy.

Even though it is relatively short it took a while to read because I became so angry at times I had to put the book down on occasion. Still informative and does a good job of encapsulating the judicial landscape.

9/10

[Rob · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Senate’s increasingly partisan confirmation process for judges and justices has been a key reason that SCOTUS’ legitimacy has eroded in recent decades. Hulse documents this breakdown of Senate comity, especially focusing on internal rules changes, fueled by partisan rancor, that has pretty much broken the confirmation process.

[Kimberly · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a 3.5 for me, but I'm rounding down because it felt a little more partisan and a lot more depressing than I expected. Good information, well-researched, well-written, but ultimately very disheartening about the fate of the judiciary.

[John Machata · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent analysis of Democratic and Republican mishandling of appointments to the Supreme Court.

[Tammy Tosti · Rating 3 out of 5]

One of my goals this year was to expand my reading palate and this reminded me of something I would have been assigned to read in college except better. I’ll admit that I didn’t know much about the Supreme Court other than what I may have learned in school
(and most likely forgot) or what I’ve seen on television.

Without going to deep here I was surprised and disappointed at how much politics come into play with who gets elected to the court and when.
Eye-opening but digestible even for someone with limited knowledge of the subject matter like me.

[Steve · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's a little hard to give this a fair rating so quickly after publication. The author is a SCOTUS reporter for the New York Times, and at times his book reads like a compendium of his articles. Like many New York Times articles, it's feels about a third longer than necessary. However, it's not really for reading today, when the reader might justly feel "I just read all of this last year, why am I re-reading all of this." The level of detail is crucial to a historic understanding, and this is an important historic document. In 20 years, political historians will need to look back to figure out how and why Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham destroyed our government.
The book opens with McConnell's snap decision, with very little consideration, to block the Merrick Garland appointment. The decision and its reverberations inform everything that has happened in American politics since 2016.
I have read the books about trying to understand the disaffected uneducated white voters who propelled Trump into the White House, but it's probably more important to understand the very educated, very conservative voters who held their noses and voted for Trump because they knew he would appoint at least one Supreme Court justice.
If you're short on time (or if you just don't need to rehash very recent history), just read the final two chapters of this book. They are a good, if enraging, summary.

[Laura · Rating 4 out of 5]

NYT Chief Washington correspondent reports the story of federal judicial selections beginning with the death of Antonin Scalia through the confirmation of Brett Cavanaugh. While the focus of the book is on Supreme Court Justices -- the non-confirmation of Merrick Garland and the selection and confirmation of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Cavanaugh --and the Republican and Democratic strategies involves in those processes, Hulse also touches on other topics: the push to confirm large numbers of conservative judges in lower federal courts, the changes in Senate rules (the "nuclear Option" and the elimination of the filibuster, first with regard to lower federal courts and then extended to the Supreme Court as well, and the erosion of the "blu -slip" process, giving Senators veto-power over judges appointed to positions in their states), and the increasingly aggressive politicization of the judicial selection process. There's an excellent section at the end of the book on the implications of all of this maneuvering for the future of the federal courts and the Senate. Hulse's reporting is thorough, balanced, intersting. and well-delivered.

[Muromets · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you were already cynical about how leadership decisions are made in politics, this is a great book to pick up to reassure you that that cynicism can safely extend to the Supreme Court as well.

Hulse tells the story of the replacement of Supreme Court judge Antonin Scalia to the appointment of judge Brett Kavanaugh, detailing all the politicking in between. In short, if you're worried about staffing decisions at the Supreme Court being made based on merit or best fit for the country, you can rest easy knowing that they're actually based on partisan politics, hypocrisy, and patronage. More so, this is the case on both sides of the aisle with Democrats and Republicans alike using the rhetoric that best fits their case depending on the circumstance, even if that rhetoric is exactly the opposite to narrative used for similar situations previously.

In other words, the rules around Supreme Court nominations and appointments are not really "rules" as much as they are malleable guidelines that are adjusted based on preference, likely to the detriment of the American voter.

A balanced take on an imbalanced story and well worth the read.

[Gerald Heath · Rating 4 out of 5]

Quite a good book about the recent Supreme Court fights, and most surprising to me, a book without obvious tilt to the left or right. Both parties come across as being unconcerned about principles. The most interesting part of the book was not the blow by blow of the recent confirmations, but the detailed history of how the the judicial selection process, particularly in the senate, has gradually deteriorated into open warfare since the Bork nomination in 1987.

The author shows that when power is exchanged, after an election, the new party in power always ups the ante in terms of vengefulness on this important issue. Also, if you love your senator, Democrat or Republican, and he/she has been around for more than a single term, don’t read the book! He/she will likely be exposed as an absolute hypocrite, simply exchanging talking points with the party across the aisle, whenever his/her party goes from majority to minority, or vice versa. It would be hilarious, if it weren’t so tragic!

Very educational, thought-provoking, and disturbing!

[Steven Kaminski · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Our judges"

You know a lot of people talk about how democracy is broken I need this book we take a look at why it's broken from the view of the senate and in particular the effect that the senate has the impact the senate has on the Judiciary.
This book starts with sudden passing of Justice Scalia and goes all the way through Brett Kavanaugh's tough confirmation battle.
Mitch McConnell relentless focus on 'his judges' absolutely shows how much the process has become a farce. McConnell was putting forward judges...people who for lifetime appointments that will determine the law with NO law experience. He put forward one nominee for a Federal appeals court who had never tried a case. Had never taken a deposition. In a universe where we see everything as political the last place where we expect fairness at least is in the Judiciary. And the Senate how now broken that beyond all opportunities for being bipartisan. This book is depressing but its important. Neither party has clean hands in this...

[Shawn · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very dense but engaging read. A thorough and logical progression through the relationship between the senate judicial committee and the appontments to US upper courts over the past three decades. Hulse does a superb job of making what could be dull legislative or judicial process both understandable and engaging. Exploring the increasingly partisan nature of the judicial process the author questions the underlying the independent nature of the judicial branch as well as the undermining of the value of bipartisan discussion and process by both Republicans and Democrats. He paints a dark picture for the future arguing that it is difficult to imagine how to reverse the trend given institutional momentum.
A fascinating read - even for some one admittedly not overly concerned about the topic. Highly recommended.

[Em · Rating 4 out of 5]

8/10

This book made me...very mad. And very sad. Nearly in equal measure. I felt that it was fairly even-handed in its treatment of the transgressions of Republicans and Democrats that have been slowly eating away at our judicial system for decades. I'll admit that I didn't know Democrats often acted no better than Republicans in many circumstances, though I still believe that the GOP has acted more reprehensibly in this arena.

The book also imparted the graveness of the current state of affairs, and the grim future ahead of us if we continue down this path of ever-increasing partisanship (hey, a positive feedback loop!). I wish the book could have ended on a positive or optimistic note, but given the book's contents, there doesn't really seem to be room for optimism at the moment.

A good read. I learned a lot, glad I read it.

[Jane Comer · Rating 4 out of 5]

The manipulation of the Senate and especially of Mitch McConnell over judicial appointments is spelled out in detail in the book. This includes the stalling and ignoring of many of Obama's appointments as well as the outright voting down of some of those. This involved the Supreme Court with the Garland nomination which was publicized, but also there were many circuit and district judgeship involved over several years. Then with the Trump election and the criticizing of Obama's laziness and boasting of Trump's efficiency in one day thirty were confirmed! What a sadness for a former government teacher to read of the lack of compromise, the underhandedness and the ignoring of the Constitution by the Senate! The author gives readable and understandable details about the machinations of these tactics. One more example of the era in which we live. What tragedy!

[Mel · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an ugly look at the appointment of Supreme Court justices and judges in general since the death of Scalia. Some big takeaways jump out. The end of use of the filibuster on judges dramatically changed judge appointments. Charles Grassley’s once stellar reputation as bipartisan was destroyed beyond repair. Trump surrendered selection of judges to Don McGahn who manipulated the process to appoint those he and supporters favored. Kavanaugh owes his position on the court to his friend McGahn and suppression of his papers from the Bush administration that show he likely lied several times when appointed. Can the Court recover? Time will tell but in the present we have judges that in the past would never have reached the bench.

[Matthew · Rating 5 out of 5]

The long-time Washington correspondent for the New York Times offers an easy to read recapitulation of the rising senatorial partisanship in the confirmation of the judiciary, the umpires who call balls and strikes, by both parties over the last two decades.

With both sides watering down the rules when they take power in the Senate to "make-up" for the actions of the last party in power -- a dangerous diminishment of compromise grows that will for decades imperil the perceived, if not true, independence of the judiciary.

A very fascinating read with some good interviews!

[Katie Keeshen]

This took me a long time to read because it pissed me off so much. It’s not the book itself. I felt that it gave a great amount of insight into the exact strategies and set of events surrounding the Supreme Court from Scalia’s death to today and fleshed out my understanding of events I lived through and followed closely. It’s just also that it touches on really rough stuff and was a huge reminder of how we lose this kind of thing and how republicans win. It’s infuriating and I’m incredibly worried about the future. :-/

[Seth · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is very interesting to read this in 2020. First of all I was not aware of all the behind-the-scenes maneuvering that goes on in regards to a Supreme Court justice, so that was fascination. Secondly, it's amazing how quaint some of the things that the author writes about seem now that we've seen more time of President Trump's presidency and the things that have come out of it; honestly it just seems so unimportant now (but perhaps that's just because I'm further away from law school and not a litigator). I also thought the author did a fairly good job maintaining political neutrality.

[Michael Lynch · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good description of the process, but I wish it had included the nomination process for Amy Coney Barrett. The book was published a year before that happened, however. I'm looking forward to a revised version that will include that nomination as well. That is not a quibble, nor a negative about the book, which is very well written and easy for the layman to understand. Hulse has done an excellent job of describing complicated processes bound by tradition and setting them in proper historical context.

[Alex O'Donnell · Rating 4 out of 5]

While it doesn't break new ground, Confirmation Bias provides an accurate and entertaining narrative of recent fights over the federal judiciary in the Senate. This includes an excellent summary of prior court fights leading up to Obama and Merrick Garland. As someone who was just a kid during this time, it helped to put the current focus on the judiciary into focus.

Must read for people interesting in why there is so much emphasis in national politics over the judicial branch.

[Robert Way · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent read. Packed with information. Explains exactly how the judicial branch lost it’s independence. Long term I don’t know what that will mean for our country, probably nothing good. Short term every federal election means you choosing what the judicial philosophy will be for decades in the future.

[Alex · Rating 4 out of 5]

A well-reported overview of the judicual confirmation wars on Capital Hill, starting back in the Reagan era and focusing heavily on the battles since the 2000 election and especially on the fucking criminal theft of Merrick Garland's seat and the outrageous installation of Brett Kavanaugh.

Ugh. Fuck Mitch McConnell forever and then for several days more.

[Readnponder · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great summary of how we got to the Senate's inaction on Merrick Garland, beginning with the Bork nomination in 1987. Includes some behind the scenes tidbits (e.g. Justice Kennedy's son worked on Trump matters while at Deutsche Bank) and explanation of arcane Senate rules that can be used by the party in power. Plenty of disappointing behavior by both parties.

[Andrew · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book on Twenty-First Century judicial wars. There are no heroes here, just an escalating, never-ending game of chicken that follows Washington power dynamics. While some have argued that this can be traced back to Bork and Clarence Thomas, it is easy to forget the bitter judicial battles of the George W. Bush presidency.

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

A well-written, if depressing, about the partisan misbehavior and tit-for-tat of the US Senate in regard to judicial confirmations over the past twenty years. In particular, it looks at the time period from the death of Scalia through the confirmation of Kavanaugh, and predicts that the partisan struggles will only get worse.